Pentax users hate photoshop

Well you can see it as that but I see it as that most youngster think that the brand makes you a better photographer and that's not good for Pentax indeed...
Pentax really need to have it from the generation of photographers that know Pentax although the K-X seems to do a good job with getting new users in at the moment, hopefully the trend will continue and hopefully the 645D is a hit with the bigger boys so that we can see some photos made by a Pentax camera back in magazines again.

But I'm going pretty of topic now so better not continue here but feel free to make a topic out of it if you want to comment.

When I started taking pictures I used photoshop excessively, trying to improve my very poor attempts at taking something better than a snap shot. Although still very much a beginner, I find that the amount of time out with my camera out ways by far my time spent in front if the computer. This is for me a better life balance. I used it as a crutch rather than improving my technique. Before everyone takes issue with me, I am not decrying the use of photoshop in any way, shape or form. In fact I love photoshop and am itching to learn more, but not at the expense of learning how to get the best out of my camera first and I have so much to learn.

Graham

Think I must be in a very small group of people who have bought Photoshop (in fact the whole web premium suite!) and just don't use it! (Don't worry, it's not wasted, Fiona has a design degree and is quite at home there!)

With the advent of more software like Lightroom, and Aperture (which I seem to use exclusively), it does seem that they are offering 90-95% of what people actually need. For example say I go out and shoot RAW for the day, I come home, copy the files to the computer, run Aperture, import photos into a new album, then crop / straighten etc. to my hearts content all in the same program. If I want to post a pic here I right click and export a JPEG at 800px max into a 'For the Web' folder. If I want to print, just print from Aperture, job done.

Now, if I wanted to use Photoshop, I would have to export the picture from Aperture, probably as a Tiff, load that into Photoshop, save it after editing it, then import it back into Aperture. To be honest, I just can't be bothered with all that nonsense, too much for me to be bothered to work out 99% of the time. When I get a shot that I really really want to sell / print very large / is very important etc. then I guess that I will find out what layers are all about and dust down that Photoshop book we have somewhere, but till then Aperture really does do everything I need.

Maybe it's just my perception of things, or that I'm happy and comfortable with my existing workflow, but to me Photoshop would be used for 'image manipulation' things like changing the sky, or cutting a person out and sticking them on the Great Wall of China or suchlike, which is something I'm just not interested in. I'd much rather just get back out there shooting again!

Photoshop is just a tool like many others including the dodging tools used in the darkroom. A skilled and experienced photographer/technician will know when the application of a tool is required - which I think was Don's point 3 pages ago.

Unlocker - I think HCB shared your feeling, 'I just want to take photographs' but someone will have spent a long time making the prints as good as they could be. These days they'd use something like Photoshop.

This does strike me as an utterly pointless (if addictive) discussion.

Incidentally if you want to test the brands theory go to www.photosig.com and see if you can guess which image was taken by which brand. I'll wager you can't.

Mike

It probably won't change your workflow, but this could be a bit simpler. If you set Photoshop as an 'external editor' in Aperture you don't have to go through the export and import routine. You just right click the image in Aperture, choose 'Edit with Photoshop', it creates a TIFF duplicate in Aperture and opens it in PS. When you save in PS it automatically updates the duplicate in Aperture.

Now, if I could have been bothered to learn that a year or so ago, things may have been quite different, many thanks for the tip!

Don't suppose you know how to sync libraries between our Mac & MacBook Pro, or should I RTFM!!!

Unfortunately not I still need to RTFM about Vaults! Apparently I have 6000 items waiting to be put into vaults

I use photoshop as stated by others as a dark room, when you are out taking photos the camera is able to take most images, there are some situations you take an image knowing you can use photoshop to obtain the image you require. ie removing clutter, high lights,deal with ares from dark to light where range is so great even with use of filters is limiting,etc.
I would agree that some over do the use of photoshop and you enter the field of Photographic art.

For me these kind of subjects are about people who chose not the market leader(s) but a once big but now smaller brand and feel they need to prove their decision day by day. I don’t think it’s necessary.

Hey guys, very very new here, but felt this is at least one thread I can contribute to.

I've worked in Advertising for over 20 years, been using Photoshop professionally since version 2 and I've seen outstanding, beautiful photography but that's a rarity to be honest in my business.

Most of the time I have to deal with emailed crap (client supplied and shot on cheap compacts) that's been jpegged and jpegged over and over again; and they want it used billboard size.

Despite me saying that I don't have a magic keyboard and that the images are just not 'fit for purpose' I have to deal with these poor quality images. and it's Photoshop that I use to try and fix things.

Photoshop is a tool. A camera is a tool. It's wrong to say that photoshop spoils or degrades somehow the skill of a photographer.

Many times I work on very high quality, wonderfully shot images (it's a real pleasure believe me when that happens!) but for practical reasons in terms of the design brief or technical specifications of the printed medium I have to alter a photographer's work. Photoshop has all the tools I need to do anything I need to, to a photograph.

I think the problem a lot of people have with photoshop is from 'Filter Boys'or 'One Click Wonders' as I like to call them. Cheesy, gratuitous effects and filters don't do much to elevate digital imaging/photography.

That said, there is nothing inherently wrong in using Photoshop, it's just a tool; and in the right hands the best one available

Moi aussi.

G

It seems to me that a good picture is 90% composition and 10% everything else (I am taking it as read that people who own a DSLR should be able to produce a picture that is sharp and properly exposed).

If a picture needs a lot of "shopping", it probably wasn't very good to start with.

G

George Lazarette wrote
I mainly used Photoshop (oldish version) for cropping and adjustments to brightness and contrast. However, having tried a number of image editing programs (both free and paid-for) I note that all the ones for PC are the same in one respect: Re-size the image, and it stays at 72 pix-per-inch. So you first have to re-sample and then scale down. An oldish version of Photoshop elements for the Mac did it in one step without resampling - the long dimension of a 10mp image (3800-odd pixels) becomes 10" at 380 mp at very acceptable print quality.
When going digital, there is a temptation to take too many shots, throw the bad ones away, and edit some of the rest. PSE4 on the Mac is making me think about the whole composition (i.e. no cropping).
As a matter of possible interest, I printed an image that had been re-sized (in PSE4/Mac from a PC having opened it in three different image editors - none were as good as from the Mac, and it was quite easy to see that there were differences in quality between them.
So, just what is the difference between film, processing, enlarging (with printing and dodging) shuffling the paper grades, playing with test strips, etc, and doing the same thing on a computer? Creative activity based on an image formed by a lens = photography in my book.
Geoff

Not true. I never resize the image, I just alter the resolution to get the desired dimensions. The print wizard with most printers does this automatically when you pick the appropriate paper.

I've covered cropping and resizing in the latest issue of PU magazine.

Of course it can be more complicated, but the crop tool will resize and resample whilst cropping if you wish. It will use the same defaults as the Image Size dialog box uses.